Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Comments (54)

From the point of view of the ruling class, people like this aren't so bad, but the really useful people are the ones who believe national elections are serious affairs that should not involve people like this because of the substantive issues being decided upon. *Those* people can always be counted on to legitimize the rotten machine.

Do pro-lifers know they are regarded as useful fools by the Republican establishment? I could ask the same about the anti-war left and the Democrats.

"Since Sarah Palin didn't know which branch of government she'd be in if elected, I imagine Jeff will agree that she has no business running in a national election (and not just because she's a woman)."

The article to which you linked didn't say she didn't know. It just said she didn't answer. But Cheney is correct, by the way. The Vice President is the President of the Senate and has a vote in case of a tie. So, the Veep is not purely executive like the President. In fact, the Veep has a page on the Senate's web site: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm

If you're so concerned about government officials knowing their powers, you may want to tell the federal bench that it is not part of the legislative branch. I betcha 500 emanations of penumbras you won't do it! :-)

How little should a brain surgeon know to be allowed to conduct surgery? How much should a physicist know in order to work with radioactive isotopes? How much should a musician know before you let him play in a major orchestra?

There should be minimal requirements for voters, such as they should be able to comprehend what they are voting for. Clairvoyance as to what the effects of their vote will be is not required, but it would seem that ORDINARY prudence would be. Since prudence is a virtue, in other words, if a person, in a general sense, can positively contribute to the moral ethos of a society, they should then be able to vote. Note: even bed-ridden people can positively contribute to society, while those who think that killing the innocent (babies, etc.) is fine, should be barred, since I contend that they lack the normal common sense and prudence required to see the truth in front of their faces.

In practice, though, I absolutely do not want someone setting up qualifications for voting, because I know who that "someone" would be, and I know it would block the wrong people and keep in the wrong people. Can you imagine a voter qualifying exam written by the likes of Nancy Pelosi? They'd probably find a way to work "what is the best method of birth control for teenagers" into a literacy test. Much as I might agree _in theory_ with the idea that there should be (or at least could legitimately be) minimal qualifications for voting, _in practice_ I think such a principle (and any mechanism to put it in practice) is likely simply to be taken over by the virus of totalitarian liberalism. Oh, and the liberals likely think that a failure to believe implicitly in man-made global warming and the full adequacy of Darwinism should disqualify you from voting.

My only objection is a quis custodiet one, Chicken. Someone has to _decide_ whether a given prospective voter is "able to comprehend what he is voting for." Surely you can see the overwhelming potential for bias and for political abuse in any testing procedure that might be put into place, especially if administered by people who, unlike you, are blinded ideologues incapable of recognizing a biased question or test procedure when they see one. Indeed, I imagine that any "civics literacy test" devised would very quickly devolve into something like what we now have in the education system in the form of "state standards," which are really recommended curriculum--often very extensive ones--and new battlegrounds in the education and culture wars. How much should students know about X or Y figure as part of the "civics literacy standards," etc.

I realize you (and perhaps Jeff) probably have something fairly simple in mind. But experience should have taught us that the government is not capable of keeping such things simple and obvious. After all, one might think that statewide educational standards should also be simple and obvious, but they are anything but, and conservatives have the most to lose from anything like a nationwide "civics literacy standard" imposed as a condition of the franchise.

Just give them the citizenship test and make them take the ASVAB and get the minimum score needed for enlistment.

If you know so little about this country and government that you couldn't acquire American citizenship or even come close, and are so dumb the military wouldn't even consider you for the infantry, you shouldn't be voting.

I realize you (and perhaps Jeff) probably have something fairly simple in mind.

Yes. I simply meant they should be able to understand the language of the questions they are voting on. How can someone vote for something if they don't the language? Either learn the language or get a translator to stand by. If a translator falsely translates the question or explains the question with a bias, then I guess there is no way for a democracy to function except with indigenous people who speak a common language (which, of course, is preferred, anyway).

Well I got 75.76% which I guess isn't bad for someone who isn't an American (1 on flood levies , who has the right to declare war and 1 on the bill of rights and a couple of questions on capitalism). Does that get me a B+?

"I think such a principle (and any mechanism to put it in practice) is likely simply to be taken over by the virus of totalitarian liberalism."

Yes, oh yes, the history of literacy tests in the United States consisted of left wingers using the tests to deny white, socially conservative Christians the franchise. That noted "totalitarian liberal" Tom Tancredo recently proposed just that at the recent far left Teabagger convention.

I would remind those of you who are history-challenged that it was liberals who worked to end things like literacy tests and poll taxes that were historically used to keep racists, populists, and social conservatives in power.

"Cheney has been happy to treat the Office of the Vice President as part of the executive branch when it suits his political purposes:

- In 2001, the White House argued that a probe into Cheney’s energy task force “would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the executive branch.”

- Cheney himself said that the probe concerned “meetings in the Executive Branch between the Vice President and other individuals.”

- On April 9, 2003, Cheney lauded a recent court ruling, stating, “I think it restored some of the legitimate authority of the executive branch, the president and the vice president, to be able to conduct their business.”

Giving credit to a self-serving dodge is merely partisan game playing.

al says: "I would remind those of you who are history-challenged that it was liberals who worked to end things like literacy tests and poll taxes that were historically used to keep racists, populists, and social conservatives in power."

We're smart people. We know these things. We can also distinguish between "used" and "abused."

Populists and especially social conservatives deserve to be in power, and any system that favors them is a good one in my book. I understand how racists rigged the tests. But what specifically helped populists and social conservatives?

Wouldn't populist anti-elitism have opposed such tests?

Masked Chicken's recommendation of the ASVAB qualification has promise. Its need to produce minimally competent recruits could hinder efforts to dumb down tests. Then again, the proposal could politicize the military's entry requirements.

If someone is such a blithering, uneducated idiot that they cannot pass the ASVAB with a score high enough to have the military flip a coin on whether or not to accept them, then why should they be participating in a process that determines public policy? Do you seriously believe that no one is too uneducated, too foolish, too just naturally stupid to be allowed to wield any political power?

Then again, the proposal could politicize the military's entry requirements.

That would be my fear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not a _federally administered_, _nationwide_ test for the right of the franchise unprecedented in American history? Were not any literacy tests at the state or local level only in the past? Leftists and liberals are free to fear a conservative politicization of such a test. I know which, in my opinion, is the way to bet, and the most relevant set of data for such a bet is not fifty or more years old! But the real concern is the centralization of power, which people of even widely differing political persuasions are free to picture differently while agreeing that the power to test everyone in the country for knowing enough to be allowed to vote is too much to be entrusted to such an authority as the federal government.

I would add, perhaps what will sound radical to my fellow conservatives, that I don't think two out of the three questions posed in the video were well-chosen. I do not believe that someone should be denied the franchise for not knowing about the electoral college or for believing that the President has the power to declare war. As for the former, the oath to vote for a party candidate and the appearance on the ballot only of the names of the candidates for the Presidency has rendered the electoral college more or less equivalent to a set of points which could as easily be awarded by computer chip. That this is probably contrary to the intent of the Founders seems right to me, but that's the way it is. In teaching about the electoral college it would probably make most sense to suggest that students think, "If a candidate wins the popular vote in X state, he gets Y points towards the Presidency." While this still means that a candidate could win the popular vote and lose the Presidency, that fact has become more or less quaint and esoteric, and not, to my mind, essential to good citizenship. As for the latter--who declares war--who follows this rigorously? Seriously. Who but some bloggers and pundits really asks, "Gee, we're in a war. Did Congress declare war?" The populace might easily be pardoned for believing that Congress is, at most, in an advisory capacity as far as our getting involved in wars. Again, is this a good thing? No, it isn't. But the people who answered, "The President" were speaking of the world as it more or less actually works and as they know it. I don't think this makes them illiterate citizens.

In short, two out of the three questions asked in the video amount to something I approve of teaching as a committed reactionary. I believe in teaching the Constitution as it actually is and as it was originally written and pointing out contemporary departures from it. I do this in my own civics work with my own homeschooled students. But I do not regard such rather high-flying knowledge, which allows one to criticize contemporary practice as unconstitutional or as a devolution from original practices, as essential civics knowledge that everyone ought to have on penalty of losing the federal franchise.

Which last statement is just to say that even if, contrary to fact, I thought that a nationawide civics literacy test as a condition of voting were a good idea, I would keep it much simpler and would not include those particular two questions.

Because while not all social conservatives and populists are racists, distribution and numbers count in elections and in this country the overlap is significant and dispositive.

"Do you seriously believe that no one is too uneducated, too foolish, too just naturally stupid to be allowed to wield any political power?"

No, but as our friend Lydia has pointed out, the application could be problematic and as i pointed out, it has been abused historically in our country and given the predatory instincts of the party usually in power in the the parts of the country where ignorance abounds, I have no doubts that abuses would happen in the future.

The real problem is a dumbed down educational system (I never tire of pointing out that the rise of conservatism has paralleled the decline of educational standards) and a corporate controlled media that focuses on politics instead of policy and "balance" instead of fact. "Journalists" are now stenographers instead of investigators and too many "analysts" are in the tank and addicted to the CW. The best recent example of how empty headed the media has become is Broder's recent column on Palin.

That noted "totalitarian liberal" Tom Tancredo recently proposed just that at the recent far left Teabagger convention.

Tancredo proposed a 'civic literacy' test, not a literacy test, nor is there any indication that he intended them to parallel the literacy tests of old. I suppose you would have to be able to read to pass it.

The real problem is a dumbed down educational system (I never tire of pointing out that the rise of conservatism has paralleled the decline of educational standards)

The decline of educational standards has also paralleled the existence of the NEA, affirmative action, and post-1965 mass immigration. Curiously, you omitted these.

al writes: "Because while not all social conservatives and populists are racists, distribution and numbers count in elections and in this country the overlap is significant and dispositive."

So you can't point to a specific vote test question set that favored social conservatives and populists over others? Dang, that's what I thought you meant.

I do agree that suppressing racism and "racism" broke a lot of social conservative power. Socially conservative, homogeneous white ethnic neighborhoods were an impediment to the rise of the present order. But were implicitly anti-Irish or anti-Polish policies any better than explicitly anti-black policies?

(I never tire of pointing out that the rise of conservatism has paralleled the decline of educational standards)

Now there's an anti-factual comment if there is such a thing.

Al, the "rise" of conservativism that you see is, unfortunately, only the surface veneer that shows where the continent of true conservativism has been sliding beneath the waves to a deep watery grave.

There isn't a unit of government that isn't vastly more liberal now than it was 60 years ago. (People who are elected as "moderate" Republicans today would have been considered far, far left less than 60 years ago.) There isn't an aspect of the broader culture that hasn't made way for liberal ideals at least 3 times as much as any comparable aspect of the culture has made way for conservative ideals.

Just to be extra clear, I absolutely do not regard the respondents in the video to be stupid, ignorant, or even uneducated. (The pretenders bothered me, but the morally corrosive atmosphere of democracy creates pretenders.) For the most part they just seemed like reasonably intelligent people with families and jobs and hobbies consisting of something other than national politics. And that's the way it ought to be. The ordinary citizen has his own life to live. It's headache enough to navigate the politics of one's own community. How many times since high school does the average citizen even need to think about questions like this? And yet we insist that they all must line up at the polls on election day and vote according to the knowledge imparted by 30-second TV spots. It's craziness.

If democracy is ever going to be saved from the joke it has become, there needs to be radical structural reform. Of course, what I am going to propose (and have proposed for years) is politically non-viable today, to say the least, but it's certainly not impossible in the long run. The first step is getting democracy-corroded minds to even "go there" conceptually.

1. Voters should pass a rigorous examination in English demonstrating a grasp of American history and institutions, emphasizing knowledge of the Constitution and its original context.

2. The family, not the individual, is the basic unit of society. Therefore only designated heads of household should vote. Female heads-of-household and singles would not be categorically excluded.

3. Voters should be required to reside in the same zip code for a minimum of five years before qualifying. Such voters would more likely represent the legitimate interests of a community as opposed to private gain.

4. The minimum voting age should return to 21.

I would also prefer to see votes weighted according to the number of dependents in a household, but that starts getting complicated. So I'll stop there. Property-holding qualifications make little sense in the modern economy. Some have proposed excluding from the franchise anyone receiving public assistance, but I see that as petty and difficult to manage.

What about a voluntary exclusion instead: change the culture of promoting "get out the vote" to instead promoting "Be responsible: don't vote unless you're qualified", i.e. unless you can pass these 3 tests - vigorous literacy, basic constitution and law, and a stiff current political affairs test."

Hand out stickers to people that say: " I exercised my right to vote by not cancelling the vote of someone who actually knows what they are doing."

OK, now that you have finished laughing and gotten back on your chair, do you have a better idea? I know it isn't very good, but hey, you don't have to change any laws to do this.

Jeff, I think it is reasonable for the family to vote as a unit, however that is arranged. And I understand the point about living in a place for 5 years, but I would say that a person who moves should be able to continue to vote in his old place if he can still pass a "local issues" test. (Or, have one test be a national test, for voting on Congresscritters and Prez, and a second for local elections.) Perhaps a young person newly moved from home should probably still have their vote cast with the family, since (a) that's where they understand the issues still, and (b) there is a decent chance they will move back there anyway.

(Interesting theory involving "community": deny a single person living alone a direct franchise, since they are not currently living out the basic communitarian day-to-day life of making sacrifices for another. Make them join together with at least one other, and designate who is head of household, in order to cast their votes. But that's a very different issue.)

I think that age 30 would be a much better minimum voting age than 21, because I don't think anyone who is 21 can be expected to have the life experience and maturity to understand when to stick to ideals, and when to settle for practical compromise that should be accepted.

Actually, Tony, I like your idea. It needs a foundation, some billboards, some TV and radio, maybe a full-page ad in the NY Times. Or we could start small with just a website. Heck, maybe I'll suggest that someone start a Facebook page and see what happens. :-)

I'm flexible on the details of a geographical stability requirement, but whatever it is should be kept very simple.

As for the minimum voting age, 21 seems reasonable to me and was good enough for the founding fathers, but I can live with 30 or even 35. The other requirements would mitigate heavily in favor of maturity in the case of 21 year olds.

Well, unfortunately, the only people who will take the promotion seriously at first would be people who are serious about politics, who therefore are probably themselves close to qualified, and therefore are better voters than the ones who vote based on the candidates looks or skin color.

Here's one place where we're agreed, Jeff & Tony: I also cringe over the hyper "get out the vote" thing. I'm bothered about it for a different reason as well as the ignorance reason: I believe it encourages compromise. I have been especially bothered to see conservatives urging each other, "Just vote. Be sure to get out and vote" as though it doesn't even matter which candidate you vote for. If this keeps up we could end up voting for _anyone_ just because voting itself is seen as sacred. So there are lots of reasons to turn around the "I voted, aren't I great? You didn't vote? You're a bad citizen" mindset.

Interesting theory involving "community": deny a single person living alone a direct franchise, since they are not currently living out the basic communitarian day-to-day life of making sacrifices for another. Make them join together with at least one other, and designate who is head of household, in order to cast their votes. But that's a very different issue.

Really bad idea, Tony. Just encourages giving more cachet to heterosexual cohabitation and cementing the acceptance of homosexual "partnerships." Even polyamory, which could be "joining together with" _several_ others to make a "household." We want to _discourage_ treating every "joining together with at least one other" as equivalent to a family. This encourages the formation of "alternative families" and treating them for purposes of the franchise as equivalent to real families. After all, they might involve "living out the basic communitarian day to day life." "Head of household" is even a tax-relevant phrase, but we certainly don't want to start moving arbitrarily generated groupings into "household" status for tax purposes.

Yes, I thought about one or two of those problems. As far as the tax issue - I was assuming that the tax designation would have nothing to do with the voting designation. No particular reason why they should coincide.

I agree that we don't want more people to think that shacking up is equivalent to marriage. But I really don't think that in our current society anyone is likely to move in together for voting purposes who wasn't ready to move in together for other purposes anyway, and I really don't think that people who live together for immoral reasons are under any significant social pressure on that account. So there would not be much change in what people do about living together. But you are right that the idea would tend, in the long run, to change how people think about living together.

And I was just passing along a theory I had heard about, I hadn't really considered it and all its ramifications.

I was assuming that the tax designation would have nothing to do with the voting designation. No particular reason why they should coincide.

Some whiner will inevitably gripe "no taxation without representation".

Lydia:

If this keeps up we could end up voting for _anyone_ just because voting itself is seen as sacred.

I think that has been the case - that voting is seen as sacred in itself - at least for my entire lifetime. Elections are our civic ritual: secularism at prayer[*]. Always have been, as far as I can tell.

Restricting the franchise, once expanded, is a non-starter and very unlikely to happen. Have voting rights ever been revoked in modern democracies?

Slightly more likely, and perhaps more helpful, is an expansion of the franchise for meritorious acts. Some other internet commentator has said we should give individuals more votes based on certain accomplishments. People get an extra vote each for honorable military service, raising kids without a major juvenile criminal record, having a marriage lasting ten years, publicly acclaimed heroism and passing a test showing your basic intellectual competence.

The potential for chaos in this proposed system is high. Imagine a presidential election with 1 billion votes cast by 200 million people! And the politicians organizing the system will probably just reward some wicked things, like getting an extra vote for signing a pledge to euthanize oneself or one's sick relatives.

But it could introduce competitiveness into civic life as people strive to be the man on their block with five or six votes.

Grabbing a chance to actually agree with Lydia about something, I'd like to second her case (in her Feb. 12, 3:15 pm comment) that these questions weren't very good (at least for the purpose of determining who should be allowed to vote), and that citizens should not be denied the write to vote for not getting such questions right.

When I viewed the video, I didn't at all have the reaction that these people shouldn't be allowed to vote; I presumed that they should, and saw no good reason to overturn that presumption. Taking Jeff's claims to the effect that (as he put it in the post itself) "there's nothing wrong with most of these people" seriously, I assume my difference of opinion with Jeff is not primarily traceable to a difference in our opinions about how knowledgeable/competent the subjects of the video are, but are mostly a case of our agreeing about what the people are like, and disagreeing over whether such people at that level should be allowed to vote.

The discussion so far seems fairly focused on the epistemological aspect of how to work a government: what set of "deciders" is likely to arrive at the best (correct, or at least not-disastrously-incorrect) decisions. (Of course, in representative democracies, things get complicated, but one is still looking for a group of voters likely to make good choices about their representatives.) But the special genius of democracy-with-wide-voting-rights is not that it identifies the group of people most likely to make the right decisions, but that it gives a very wide group of people a greater personal stake in the governing of their country (or whatever). And in various ways, it's good for lots of people to be able, in the way promoted by giving them voting rights, to feel more like citizens, and less like subjects, in their land. (By analogy [ok, a quite loose analogy, but still…], a wise man I know, who was about to substantially help his daughter financially in getting through college, once he determined that his daughter’s “finalists” were all above a certain line, decided to just let her decide which college to attend. As he explained to me, it wasn’t that he had great faith that she would pick the best one for her, or was more likely to pick the best college for her than he was, but rather tht he had decided that her going to any of her finalists, having chosen it herself, would likely work out better than her going to one he liked best for her, without her having chosen it herself, because she would be more personally invested in the choice. Of course, the wisdom of his way of handling the situation depends a lot on details [about the quality of the finalists, about his daughter’s psychology] I’m not giving, but I hope everyone can sense that there are realistic ways of filling in the details which make his handling very wise indeed.)

Well, I just scored 100%, so I guess I'll be allowed to vote - unless the "Masked Chicken" has his way. His posting of 7:54 AM on 12 February is case closed on why any civics literacy test would be a Bad Idea. It would swiftly be used by people who want only those who think like them to be able to vote.

Keith, I think that the notion of ownership or being invested in the enterprise is important. And would make a valuable rationale for deciding how far to extend the franchise. Except that the reverse seems to have been the result: as the franchise has become broadened to almost everyone, many view it as an insignificant aspect of being an American. And treat it that way too. The number of people who actually vote versus the number who would be eligible to vote if they chose to register is, even in the best years, about half or less. In non-presidential years it goes lower. So if roughly half don't bother voting, and at least 1/2 of those who vote have never bothered to take a real effort to learn the issues, laws, and realities that are controlled by what they are doing, that's 3/4 of the population who are not very invested in Enterprise America as a democracy.

If you had to earn the right to vote by a positive act, such as pass a test, (or serve in the military, or any other significant requirement), you invest yourself in the enterprise of America by the effort of learning what's needed for the test and then going through the hoops of signing up for and passing the test. As, for example, immigrants who become citizens: they are almost always WAY more proud of being Americans than are the native born, and are extremely invested in the enterprise of America.

I see Lydia's practical problems of a test being warped for political reasons. That's probably an inherently intractable problem. But maybe the goal is worth that problem: even having a test at all will carve out the people who are too ignorant to figure out the test. If it is skewed for political reasons, then smart people will figure out that too and account for it when they take the test. (The advantage of a test (or a series of tests) is that it sets a bar that EVERYONE can meet, unlike requirements like property, age, sex, and living in a community for 5 years.)

I have thought of just making voter drives illegal. The people who are neither invested enough to get off their cans and register in time, or too ignorant to wade through the intensely difficult process ;-) maybe should not be voting? Let nature take its course with them.

If it is skewed for political reasons, then smart people will figure out that too and account for it when they take the test.

What if that means you have to assent to something you think is false?

The example I gave above of a test question, "Which of the following are good forms of birth control for teenagers to use?" is not a made-up example. Granted, it didn't occur on a test for being allowed to vote, but it did (I am told) occur on a "health" test given to all students (including those who had exercised their opt-out right from sex ed) in a public school in a Western-style country. The parents involved had a momentary heart attack when their child did not get a good grade on the "health" test (because he felt it went against his conscience to answer the loaded questions on that part of the test). They thought it might have been one of a battery of tests required throughout the country for university entry. The story remains unfinished, and I don't know if it was in fact one of "those" crucial tests. But what if it were? The dangers of standardized testing, testing that becomes central to a person's exercising citizenship and even (in that case) to his ability to get a degree and get a job, in action. I'm afraid "taking the bias into account" just can't always cover it.

"Which of the following are good forms of birth control for teenagers to use?"

Lydia, do you think that it is immoral to answer this by treating the question as _really_ asking "Which of the following do the test-makers believe are good forms of birth control for teenagers to use?" As long as the "assent" you are being asked remains an assent about what are supposedly FACTS instead of policy, opinion, tastes, and the like, we internally modify how we answer questions like that all the time, answering what the questioner is really trying to get at, instead of taking the question totally at face value. The question doesn't ask which forms of birth control "you think" are good forms, which would really be a goofy question, and impossible to grade properly. Nor does the question ask "which forms of birth control are you using", which wouldn't be a question about general facts at all, but a behavior standard.

It is always possible for tests on facts-that-you-know to morph into required actions: If you will bow down to this false god, you can vote. (Oh, disguised of course: if you will sell the morning-after pill.) Short of the test morphing into that sort of BEHAVIOR test, I don't see a moral issue about answering to what I think the testing entity is looking for rather than the literal meaning of the words. After all, if I both know the real truth that answers the literal question at hand, and I also know what answer the test is looking for, then I do in fact _know_, and answering the question to get a positive score does not mis-represent the level of my knowledge. If the test really is supposed to test my knowledge (rather than my compliance with a politically driven standard of behavior), answering what I know is the real truth but is going to be scored wrong by the graders doesn't correctly gauge my knowledge and the testing as a mechanism for determining knowledge level has failed.

So, if the problem is setting up to eventually become a behavior test, like a creed test (perhaps loyalty to the World Council of Churches "creed"), yes I grant that this is an issue. I don't see it as long as the test is about knowledge.

I really question characterizing that question as merely testing knowledge, unless the knowledge in question is knowledge not of any objective facts but merely of the thought processes of the test writers who think birth control used in out-of-wedlock sex by lustful teenagers is a great thing. I would think a Catholic, especially, would object in principle to his child's having to answer such a question. One would have to change it in one's mind to, "What methods of birth control did our textbook say [or do the test writers probably think] are good for teenagers to use?" or something of the sort.

Now, I'm not entirely opposed to the use of mental reservations. I assent to some things with mental reservations. (No, I'm not going to say what they are.) The doctrine of mental reservations is an interesting one. I think it _might_ be possible for a young person who thinks all forms of birth control are _bad_ for teenagers to use to answer that question ethically. Perhaps it might be best of all if he gave what he thought was the desired answer and then wrote in the margin, "I am answering this question according to the material we were taught and according to the answer I believe is desired. In actual fact, I am morally opposed to the use of birth control" or "In actual fact, I am morally opposed to making birth control available to those who are unmarried," or whatever.

But it absolutely should not be necessary for people to start wondering whether they are being asked to bow down to the image when the instruments sound or whether they are legitimately exercising the art of mental reservation in order just to live in the world and do ordinary things. And the power to press people--_especially_ young people--into such a situation where their consciences may be legitimately tender because of their honesty and because of their principles should *absolutely not* be granted to a centralized, governmental authority.

If we conservatives would become alarmed if the federal government started writing a standard educational curriculum which all young people must know in order to go to college (and we would), we should be at least as alarmed if the federal government had the power to write a standardized test which all young people must pass in order to vote. You and I both know that the HSLDA is always on the lookout for centralization and federalization of educational power in the U.S., and rightly so. They would be on any such thing in a flash, and would oppose it. There is a strong and healthy distrust of federal power among conservatives nowadays, and I'm on board with that distrust. Honestly, I would oppose any such test for voting tooth and nail. I think it's a very, very dangerous and actually rather naive idea. The virus principle must always be kept in mind.

To clarify: I'm not opposed in principle to limiting the franchise. I honestly think it would be less dangerous and problematic to repeal the 19th amendment than to limit the franchise to those who pass a government test, though of course neither is politically possible.

If we conservatives would become alarmed if the federal government started writing a standard educational curriculum which all young people must know in order to go to college (and we would), we should be at least as alarmed if the federal government had the power to write a standardized test which all young people must pass in order to vote.

Yes, I agree. I wasn't thinking of the federal gov for this whole project. Doesn't the state government determine general voting eligibility rules (other than the idiotic and probably unconstitutional age 18 mandatory lower limit)? But further than that, I was also talking about tests devised not by government at all, but civic-minded don't-get-out-the-vote programs, designed to make people think twice about voting based on a test that the civic organization themselves prepared. Such tests, in order to make someone really sit up and take notice, would have to ask questions in such a way that they themselves would admit "yeah, I really don't know stuff that I ought to know about how government operates if I am going to vote."

Taking Jeff's claims to the effect that (as he put it in the post itself) "there's nothing wrong with most of these people" seriously, I assume my difference of opinion with Jeff is not primarily traceable to a difference in our opinions about how knowledgeable/competent the subjects of the video are, but are mostly a case of our agreeing about what the people are like, and disagreeing over whether such people at that level should be allowed to vote.

Well, it does seem that we disagree about how knowledgeable/competent the "man on the street" is when it comes to voting. I say there is nothing wrong with these people because there is nothing wrong with not having the knowledge/competence they don't have; i.e., there is nothing wrong with not being qualified to govern a nation or choose its governors. Most people aren't.

Citizens with a high degree of political awareness and competence are made, not born. It's an abnormal state of human existence and one that detracts from more basic human concerns and responsibilities. But if that's what we want for our Republic - and I don't think we really have much of a choice, as Americans - then we've got to raise the bar.

But the special genius of democracy-with-wide-voting-rights is not that it identifies the group of people most likely to make the right decisions, but that it gives a very wide group of people a greater personal stake in the governing of their country (or whatever). And in various ways, it's good for lots of people to be able, in the way promoted by giving them voting rights, to feel more like citizens, and less like subjects, in their land.

Definitely a fair point, Keith. But there has to be some way to do this without insisting that ordinary people make decisions beyond their competence. The reforms I propose (entirely a fantasy for now - granted) accomplish this quite well. And those who do not qualify to vote under that scheme will still have other ways of influencing the votes of those who do. It's still a very egalitarian arrangement: there's no reason why 75% or more of American households who desired a vote could not obtain one.

In fact, I would not be at all surprised if qualifying for the franchise by examination and so forth actually increased voter participation. Cheap privileges are not widely valued, as evidenced by low voter turnout in most elections.

I take Lydia's point about the political climate being unfavorable at this time, and she's right. Maybe it's best that franchise reform remain a fantasy for a while. But there are larger principles at stake and these are inseparable from the reforms I propose. Were the American electorate ever to accept those principles, well, the climate will already have changed for the better.

"1. Voters should pass a rigorous examination in English demonstrating a grasp of American history and institutions, emphasizing knowledge of the Constitution and its original context.

2. The family, not the individual, is the basic unit of society. Therefore only designated heads of household should vote. Female heads-of-household and singles would not be categorically excluded.

3. Voters should be required to reside in the same zip code for a minimum of five years before qualifying. Such voters would more likely represent the legitimate interests of a community as opposed to private gain."

Ummm, can you reconcile #1 with #s 2 and 3? What history, institutions, and Constitution are you referencing? Have you not failed your own test?

Al, I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I'll attempt a guess.

If you mean to say that American history, institutions, and the Constitution are incompatible with "one household, one vote", you are quite wrong. Reserving the franchise to men, as was practiced for much of our history, was an effective proxy for the same thing. The difference is that under my proposal we don't need to repeal the 19th Amendment.

As for the requirement of residing in the same zip code for five years, that's probably a "new" political idea in the American context, but it makes intuitive sense and isn't contrary to some inviolable principle of American democracy. There have long been residency requirements for holding public office, for example.

As you know, I live near the university town of Chico, and during the school year the university adds 17,000 potential voters to the city's population. Local residents have long complained about the extreme liberal political influence of this group - along with the highly transient non-tenured collegiate community - which skews the outcome of local elections.

Well, heck, according to Zippy, voting in national elections is a mirage anyway: you are not able to do any good, and you can do evil by choosing to support someone that does intrinsically immoral stuff. (Even though your vote cannot help them win, your choice to vote for them is an evil act.) You should only vote in local elections.

"The qualification of electors shall be that every free white man, and no other person, who acknowledges the being of a God, and believes in a future state of rewards and punishments, and who has attained to the age of one and twenty years, and hath been a resident and an inhabitant in this State for the space of one whole year before the day appointed for the election he offers to give his vote at, and hath a freehold at least of fifty acres of land, or a town lot, and hath been legally seized and possessed of the same at least six months previous to such election, or hath paid a tax the preceding year, or was taxable the present year, at least six months previous to the said election, in a sum equal to the tax on fifty acres of land, to the support of this government, shall be deemed a person qualified to vote for, and shall be capable of electing, a representative or representatives..." Constitution of South Carolina, 1778

That is to say, we have an artifact of an earlier, benighted age. If one reviews the various state constitutions and charters from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, one finds the association of "free" and "white" with "male" or "man". The abolitionist and suffragist movements paralleled each other in the nineteenth century (along with movements to protect children, non-human animals and labor). The Founders created an union, leaving the building of a more perfect one to succeeding generations. That has been our history.

While there were conepts like freeholder and various schemes tied to property ownership, the notion of family in the sense you use it seems alien to the deep and abiding idividualism that is so deeply rooted in our past. "We the people" not "We the families" and, unless you have a novel interpretation of the Declaration, 'That all men are created equal;" is inclusive of all members of our species.

This is the 19th Amemdment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

I don't see how we get to your ideal without repealing that part of our Constitution.

Your residency requirements are historically problematic and, absent a change in the Constitution, would likely be found unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and the Privledges and Immunities Clause in Article IV. The test would be strict scrutiny.

For example, one branch of my family arrived here in 1732, first in Philadelphia and following a common pattern amongst settlers in those times were soon moving far and wide. They were active in political affairs in a manner your proposal would have seriously impeded. We have always been a mobile people and you ignore that part of our history.

There have always been conflicts between town and gown but these hardly justify denying folks basic rights. There are advantages to having universities around and my solution is to live in an unincorporated county area and enjoy the benefits of rural life (not much local government, neighbors, and lots of open space and deer) AND the cultural ambiance that comes from university.

I hope folks are noticing that there is a part of conservatism that rejects the United States and would substitute some sort of aristocracy for our republic.

BTW, the only good thing about the 15th century in Europe was that workmen enjoyed a higher standard of living due to labor shortages from the Plague.

As for your test, I would have essay questions and anyone who used the terms "original intent" or "judicial activism" as serious concepts would be barred from voting unless they used both terms in that manner, in which case they would be removed to an island where they could spend their days in comfort but unable to do harm.

our residency requirements are historically problematic and, absent a change in the Constitution, would likely be found unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and the Privledges and Immunities Clause in Article IV. The test would be strict scrutiny.

Al, your post started with a sample of a residency requirement, and then you say that a residency requirement is problematic? That doesn't make a lot of sense. How is a one-year requirement fundamentally different from a 5 year requirement?

I hope folks are noticing that there is a part of conservatism that rejects the United States and would substitute some sort of aristocracy for our republic.

Since the United States as such has always had some kind of restrictions on the franchise, suggesting new and alternative restrictions on the franchise is not a "rejection" of the United States, it is a modification of the current practice. Or are you going to say that any change to the current method is a rejection of the US? Would it be a rejection to suggest going back to literally the exact same rules we had in 1800, except with women and blacks able to vote? How could that be a rejection?

There is nothing sacred about the franchise being nearly universal, and nothing inherently American about it. Nor is there anything fundamental to America lost by restricting the franchise to a slightly smaller subset than currently votes. These are matters of adjustment, modification, correction; subject to passing fads, new developments of culture, and better appreciation for human nature. The fact that we used to have a restriction to age 21 doesn't mean that lowering the age to 18 somehow altered the very meaning of America, did it? So how could going back to 21 change the meaning of America?

Granted that moving back to age 21 would require an amendment. But that's exactly what Jeff was assuming. So the notion that the changes he is talking about would violate the 14th amendment or Article IV is pure nonsense - if an amendment put it in place, all prior provisions would have to be re-interpreted with the newest amendment in mind.

I just read Kennedy's speech in favor of age 18, made back in 1970. http://tedkennedy.org/ownwords/event/voting_age
A more fatuous string of non-sequiturs would be difficult to find. One thing comes through more loudly than all the rest, though: the same generation that fought in WWII and won if "for democracy" couldn't see their way to handing to their kids' generation anything more difficult, more challenging, more demanding of effort, discipline and patience, than waiting for a bowl of jello to set. The basic argument boils down to this: we think our kids are wonderful and they shouldn't have to wait any longer to get the vote. Falls right in line with: we think our kids are wonderful and they shouldn't have to work to go to college. We think our kids are wonderful, and they shouldn't have to be held to the hard standards of Christian virtue.

Well, heck, according to Zippy, voting in national elections is a mirage anyway: you are not able to do any good, and you can do evil by choosing to support someone that does intrinsically immoral stuff.

Yeah, in months of discussion I didn't say anything more subtle or interesting than that. Whew, that's a relief, because it means everything I said at the time can be dismissed out of hand.

Tony, the quote was from the 18th century, a time in which state citizenship was far more meaningful then today. The Civil War and the 14th Amendment changed that relationship. There had always been a tension between residency requirements and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the resolution has been towards reduced residency requirements.

"(b) Congressional declaration: durational residency requirement, abolishment; absentee registration and balloting standards, establishment
Upon the basis of these findings, Congress declares that in order to secure and protect the above-stated rights of citizens under the Constitution, to enable citizens to better obtain the enjoyment of such rights, and to enforce the guarantees of the fourteenth amendment, it is necessary
(1) to completely abolish the durational residency requirement as a precondition to voting for President and Vice President, and
(2) to establish nationwide, uniform standards relative to absentee registration and absentee balloting in presidential elections." 42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1

I don't believe I mentioned age, so I can't understand your focus on it. Changing the number in the 26th Amendment from 18 to 21 would be qualitatively different from repealing the 19th Amendment.

Changing the franchise from an individual basis to a "head of household' seems rather radical to me and would require significant changes to the Constitution. Couple that with Jeff's other posta and you will see a discomfort with this nation as a republic of free individuals.

Likwise a five year residency requirement seems rather radical and absent a constitutional amendment would be unconstitutional as well as leading to a fair number of people being taxed with no representation for an unreasonable duration.

Al, I don't disagree that accomplishing what Jeff has suggested would entail amendments to the Constitution. Quite right. But hypothesizing such an amendment, the problems arising out of the 14th Amendment, and Article IV, and the statute you cited, would all dry up in a puff of wind. The fiat of the amendment would eradicate the problem. (Well, the legal problem.)

Just so: the statute only applies to national elections. Justice Hugo Black in the Supreme Court's decision Oregon vs Mitchell made it clear that the Congress cannot ramrod requirements down the throat of states on state elections. (Nor am I suggesting that we really need to have a patchwork of different state laws on absentee ballots, for example, but we DO have a patchwork of different laws on the franchise of those found guilty of crimes and misdemeanors, and nobody thinks that patchwork violates either the Constitution or any fundamental American ideal.)

1) to completely abolish the durational residency requirement as a precondition to voting for President and Vice President, and

There is a perfectly valid basis for this federal law that works as a reason to forbid durational residency requirements INSOFAR AS it applies to presidential elections, that does not obtain for state elections: A person can be in 5 different states for 5 different years, and all the while be in the United States, and therefore maintain a consistent and long-term relation the the national polity, without having a comparable long term relation to the community of any specific state. Since you cannot live in the US without living in states, but you can live in the US without living in precisely ONE state for a period, the durational requirement imposes something that is undue with respect to presidential elections that does not bear on state elections.

Changing the franchise from an individual basis to a "head of household' seems rather radical to me

Yeah, me too. I would expect a long and heated debate on this before any support for it became widespread. But that doesn't make it a bad idea, just really different (according to today's atomistic standards).

Likwise a five year residency requirement seems rather radical and absent a constitutional amendment would be unconstitutional as well as leading to a fair number of people being taxed with no representation for an unreasonable duration.

Define "unreasonable". Already people have to wait 18 years before they can vote, and nobody thinks that the tax code ought to exempt them from taxes just because they can't yet vote. My kids who are earning money at 14 feel outraged that they have to send 20 % of their money to the gov, but that's because the idea of tax is new to them. But leaving that aside, it might be perfectly acceptable to stipulate that once a person achieves the franchise in one place, he can maintain that franchise in that place until he meets the residency requirement in a new place to have the franchise there. We more or less do something similar for our military anyway. What you are pointing out is a valid concern, but is not ultimately impossible to manage.

Tony, I would refer you to Dunn v. Bradshaw in which durational residency requirements were held to be a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

You are conflating two different categories of constitutional provisions. Some are operational and force some arbitrary decision - 35 years for president, March 4th for the inauguration, etc. If we are going to have elections choices have to be made.

Other items fall into a different category; one that is fundamental and changes in that category change the whole project. The age at which one attains the franchise and ones residence (the fact of residence) are among the former. Duration is classed among the latter.

The three post Civil War amendments were, in a sense, a second founding. Redefining the 14th Amendment in order to accommodate Jeff's project (as well as repealing the 19th Amendment) would fundamentally change our concepts of Equal Protection and short circuit the slow march towards a reinvigorated concept of the Privileges and (or) Immunities clause.

If I were to seek to register in Orland while living where I currently reside, a reasonable law would prevent me from doing so.

However, if I move to Orland and acquire a residence there, it should be obvious that I have an arguable immediate interest in how governance in Orland and Glenn County is conducted. However, it is not obvious that I need five years (or even a year) to develop a proper interest in local governance. Holding otherwise is nothing other than the same sort of ideologically based social engineering that predicted the glories of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the eventual withering away of the state.

Re: your children and taxes. Most of that is likely payroll taxes. This is an excellent opportunity for you to give your kids a civics lesson - one that deals with real community and intergenerational dependence as opposed to the mythic and unattainable ones idealized on this site.

There are folks, now retired, who built and sustained the nation in which they live and prosper. Many years ago we decided that destitution after a lifetime of honest work was unacceptable and that a just society should provide a bare minimum for those past working age; later we added health care. Your kids are standing on their shoulders. Now that they are working they are starting to do their part. One day others will do the same for them as long as we maintain that bargain. Encouraging them to break the deal will not make this a better nation.

California is a good example. In the past folks paid their taxes and got schools (including a world class university), roads, water projects, parks and all sorts of other good things. Then the taxes are evil crowd got their way (Prop. 13 and the two-thirds budget rule, for example) and the state is falling apart.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):